perhaps that is what they did but don't you think erasing a part of history that is as important as this , is wrong ? should the choice of rewriting
the history books of the Apollo images be up to NASA or the Public taxpayers ?

perhaps that is what they did but don't you think erasing a part of history that is as important as this , is wrong ? should the choice of rewriting
the history books of the Apollo images be up to NASA or the Public taxpayers ?

Since you've posted an example of an EVA photo which has been altered, I guess I should post a spaceflight image that has been Altered ( perhaps by
the kind folks at LPI) - And like you did, also tell people how to replicate what they are seeing in the image below.

=

...

In Apollo image AS17-148-22682, if one applies the bucket-fill tool to the right-hand side of the image, one will notice a strange effect. In these
images it is quite evident that someone has blacked out a large portions of the image.

Here is another example of this type of image manipulation this time from AS17-148-22718:

Keep up the good work Easynow. I always look forward to reading your work and about your latest finds.

Edit:

One more thing:

Easynow, if you compare these images to the versions at gateway to astronomy you might be able see what was edited out and how unnecessary the
alterations made by (LPI?)were - as they only really serve to hinder any research efforts and for the most part the altered images do not appear to
have required such drastic alterations to increase their "aesthetics".
*The images do seem to have been altered to match what people have been told to expect when they see space from this perspective.

thanks Exuberant1 for the images and i will check it out. most likely cropped from a bigger picture but like you said it would be interesting to see
what else might be in the picture since they decided to exclude the rest of it.

IMO, the more likely scenario is the UFO is actually something that was there when the picture was taken and "flared up" in the image when the Lewis
Archives copy was made and the ALSJ and LPI versions have been "sanitized"

Professor of Physics , Dr. Horace Crater has put forth a theory about transient magnetic anomalies and how these anomalous properties could be Alien
related.

Magnetic and geologic surveys of many areas throughout the world have revealed magnetic anomalies that could not be produced by any natural or
known phenomena. These transient magnetic anomalies have been recorded, indicating synchronous aerial magnetic anomalies have a multidimensional para
physical place of origin, in terms of a different level of reality, where stability and solidity are being fuelled by a ceaseless process of subatomic
particles, constantly dissolving into an implicit order, and then re-crystallizing within our space. Extraterrestrial biological entities may be using
technologies and aspects of the physical universe that are beyond our current understanding to conceal their behavior, culture, appearance, and
occasionally revealing their presence in our measurable space-time by making frequency shifts that leave traces of field flux, in certain energy
spectra, allowing us to witness their presence.

Organizations (Project Phoenix and the BETA 2 Group) on earth have confirmed signals, using narrow band spectral analyzers, privately stating that
the signals received, exhibited enough source information to determine and confirm an intelligent agent created them. The signals show language like
structures, proofing "alien" intelligence to human life. The government has decided to suppress this information from the general public due to the
widespread consequences, affecting all groups of society. Governments are scared of what this extraterrestrial contact information would mean to the
different cultures on earth. They fear a breakdown in social order, a 'complete' breakdown in conventional religion. They even fear loss of control
over the masses.

Originally posted by Exuberant1Get the file here and try it yourselves.

I did.

Photoshop's non-contiguous bucket-fill is very useful for this type of work.

Easynow, if you compare these images to the versions at gateway to astronomy you might be able see what was edited out and how unnecessary the
alterations made by (LPI?)were - as they only really serve to hinder any research efforts and for the most part the altered images do not appear to
have required such drastic alterations to increase their "aesthetics".
*The images do seem to have been altered to match what people have been told to expect when they see space from this perspective.

I
agree, and the only alterations I have seen are like that: greyscale Moon with a colour Earth, blackened sky, too much contrast, etc.

Aldrin: The first unusual thing that we saw I guess was 1 day out, or something, pretty close to the moon. It had a sizeable dimension to it, so
we put the monocular on it.

Collins: How'd we see this thing? Did we just look out the window and there it was?

Aldrin: Yes, and we weren't sure but that it might be the S-IVB [Saturn Rocket Third Stage]. We called the ground and were told the S-IVB was 6000
miles away. We had a problem with the High Gain about this time, didn't we?

Collins: There was something. We felt a bump or maybe I just imagined it.

Aldrin: Of course, we were seeing all sorts of little objects going by at the various dumps and then we happened to see this one brighter object going
by. We couldn't think of anything else it could be other than the S-IVB. We looked at it through the monocular and it seemed to have a bit of an
L-shape to it.

Armstrong: Like an open suitcase.

Aldrin: We were in PTC [Passive Thermal Control] at the time so each one of us had a chance to take a look at this and it certainly seemed to be
within our vicinity and of a very sizeable dimension.

Armstrong: We should say that it was right at the limit of the resolution of the eye. It was very difficult to tell just what shape it was. And there
was no way to tell the size without knowing the range or the range without knowing the size.

Aldrin: So then I got down in the LEB [Lower Equipment Bay] and started looking for it in the optics. We were grossly misled because with the sextant
off-focus what we saw appeared to be cylinder.

Armstrong: Or really two rings.

Aldrin: Yes.

Armstrong: Two rings. Two connected rings.

Collins: No, it looked like a hollow cylinder to me. It didn't look like two connected rings. You could see this thing tumbling and, when it came
around end-on, you could look right down in its guts. It was a hollow cylinder. But then you could change the focus on the sextant and it would be
replaced by this open-book shape. It was really weird.

Aldrin: I guess there's not too much more to say about it other than it wasn't cylinder.

Collins: It was during the period when we thought it was a cylinder that we inquired about the S-IVB and we'd almost convinced ourselves that's what
it had to be. But we don't have any more conclusions than that really. The fact that we didn't see it much past this one time period - we really
don't have a conclusion as to what it might have been, how big it was, or how far away it was. It was something that wasn't part of the urine dump,
we're pretty sure of that. Skipping ahead a bit, when we jettisoned the LM, you know we fired an explosive charge and got rid of the docking rings
and the LM went boom. Pieces came off the LM. It could have been some Mylar or something that had somehow come loose from the LM.

Aldrin: We thought it could have been a panel, but it didn't appear to have that shape at all.

Collins: That's right, and for some reason, we thought it might have been a part of the High Gain Antenna. It might have been about the time we
had high gain antenna problems. In the back of my mind, I have some reason to suspect that its origin was from the spacecraft. history.nasa.gov...

NASA Office of Defense Affairs: The First Five Years
Chapter 14 - NASA SECURITY CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM.
This chapter deals specifically with the discussion surrounding NASA's adoption of their modified EO 10501 National Security interpretation in
1966

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Anything that might raise suspicion or seem out of place in an image or otherwise, well that is probably just coincidental or done for our own
good.

That is why I don't understand why easynow posted that image, it doesn't have anything out of place, I have seen in real life
many photos looking like that.

Obviously, some people may say that they changed the photo in a way to make it look like a normal anomaly (if there is such a thing

), but then why
didn't they changed it to make whatever they wanted invisible? They have the means to do it and nobody will ever know.

That's the biggest problem I have with the idea that NASA (or any other space agency) try to hide things on their photos but for some reason some of
those things are found out, if they want to do it they can do it without looking suspicious. And no, it's not just for digital photos, the techniques
to change photos exist since photos exist, for more than 100 years at the time of the Apollo missions.

I have said several times that I have seen images altered by NASA and high resolution images disappear, so I don't understand why do you, from time
to time, imply that I am one of those people that say (or think) that NASA does not lie.

That is why I don't understand why easynow posted that image, it doesn't have anything out of place, I have seen in real life many photos
looking like that.

ArMaP, i am skeptical of your skepticism

i posted that image so people can see there is more to the picture than meets the eye and just because you have seen many photos "in real life" that
might look like it has the same effects does not mean the NASA photo with the obfuscation (imo) is the same thing.

if i go buy two different brands of strawberry ice cream and they both have the same color and texture and appear to look the same , are they the same
? no they are not and you are using circular logic to dismiss my accusations and opinions. of course it's your prerogative to due so but lets not
have yours or my opinions masquerading as facts ok ?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.